#Fury x fp64 1080p#
#Fury x fp64 upgrade#

The fact that Fiji comes at the latter-half of the 28nm process’s life time means that such a large GPU is not nearly as risky now as it would have been in 2011/2012 (NVIDIA surely took some licks internally on GK110), but still, nothing else we can show you today can really sell the significance of Fiji to AMD as much as the die size can.Īnd the fun doesn’t stop there. And yet Fiji dwarfs it, coming in at 158mm2 (36%) larger. When Hawaii was released in 2013 at 438mm2, it was already AMD’s biggest GPU ever for its time. Looking at Fiji relative to AMD’s other big GPUs, it becomes very clear very quickly just how significant this change is for AMD. TSMC can’t build chips any bigger than this Fiji is as big a chip as AMD can order.

Fiji’s 596mm2 die size is just 5mm2 (<1%) smaller than NVIDIA’s GM200, and more notably still hits TSMC’s 28nm reticle limit. The end result is that for the first time since the unified shader era began, AMD has gone toe-to-toe with NVIDIA on die size. Altogether they’re riskier than smaller chips, and while there are times where they are necessary, AMD has never reached this point until now. Big chips are expensive to develop, expensive to produce, take longer to develop, and yield worse than small chips (this being especially the case early-on for 40nm). As we mentioned in our introduction, AMD has traditionally shied away from big chips, even after the “small die” era ended, and for good reason. More than anything else, it’s simply huge, 596mm2 to be precise. We’ll get to HBM in detail in a bit, but it’s important to call out the impact of HBM and the interposer early, since they have a distinct impact on how Fiji was designed and what its capabilities are.Īs for Fiji itself, Fiji is unlike any GPU built before by AMD, and not only due to the use of HBM. Essentially a very large chip without any expensive logic on it, the silicon interposer allows for finer, denser signal routing than organic packaging is capable of, making the ultra-wide 4096-bit HBM bus viable for the first time. The job of the interposer is to sit between the package and the GPU, serving as the layer that connects the on-package HBM memory stacks with the GPU. Whereas past GPUs were defined by the GPU die itself and then the organic substrate package it sits on, the inclusion of HBM requires a third layer, the silicon interposer.

For 1440p Quad HD, we were able to play Overwatch 2, Strange Brigade, World War Z, Battlefield V, Fallout 76 at 61 fps to 72 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 65 fps.įor 2160p 4K, we were able to play Valorant at 96 fps to 96 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 96 fps.Now that we’ve had a chance to take a look at the architecture backing Fiji, let’s talk about the Fiji GPU itself.įiji’s inclusion of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) technology complicates the picture somewhat when talking about GPUs.

#Fury x fp64 1080p#

Similarly, those holding onto GTX 980 's GTX 780 graphics cards will not have a reason to jump teams yet.įor 1080p Full HD, we were able to play GreedFall, Death Stranding, Final Fantasy XV, F1 2019, Far Cry New Dawn at 61 fps to 68 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 65 fps. Users with a R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X will not see a remarkable increase in frame rates after paying more for this R9 FURY.

#Fury x fp64 upgrade#

Whether it is a justifiable upgrade depends on what graphics card you are upgrading from. Even if the R9 FURY consistently delivers frame rate increases over the R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, the gain is not much to justify an upgrade. Unfortunately, gaming performance was not quite as impressive. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA closest equivalent card is the GTX 980 which costs $ 549. Compare this to the R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, which came originally at a price of $ 329, $ 429. The R9 FURY is much more expensive than the R9 390 as it costs a whopping $ 549. The good news is, with the release of the R9 FURY X, the R9 FURY 's price is getting more discount. The overall score is determined based on the calculated weightings for the individual components. The higher the better for higher resolution textures and future The higher the better.Ĭurrent CPU Impact on performance with respect to the highest performing CPU used for benchmark at the The higher the better.ĤK performance at 2160p resolution. The lower the better.įull HD performance at 1080p resolution. The lower the better for longer life of the graphics card. Power Supply Wattage required for overall system. The newer the better technology and performance optimization and